And as little equity as possible, for identical reasons.
An employee is responsible for making sure the terms agreed on are ones they're happy with, not an employer. An employer has a legal obligation to shareholders to minimize the costs of her business, one in direct conflict with "being generous in compensation" to her employees.
Although in this case we have an engineer who was all three of employer, shareholder and employee....
And you're wrong about "minimize costs" per se. The employer has a obligation to maximize shareholder returns, for which a simplistic application of the "minimize costs" principle is seldom a solution.
And as little equity as possible, for identical reasons.
An employee is responsible for making sure the terms agreed on are ones they're happy with, not an employer. An employer has a legal obligation to shareholders to minimize the costs of her business, one in direct conflict with "being generous in compensation" to her employees.